Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday October 11, 2012 @11:13AM
from the interesting-character-fades-from-view dept.

jdavidb writes "46 years ago, occupying an abandoned WWII platform off the coast of Britain, Paddy Roy Bates declared independence, naming himself Prince of the Principality of Sealand. Today, Bates has passed away at 91. Long time Slashdot readers will remember Sealand as the site of HavenCo, an unsuccessful data warehousing company that tried to operate from Sealand outside the reach of larger nations' legal structures. They may also remember plans that the Pirate Bay had at one time to buy Sealand. Bates had moved to a care home a few years ago, naming his son Michael Regent of Sealand."

I met Prince (Regent?) Michael years ago, during the dotcom boom, when HavenCo was still on Sealand. He was in San Francisco to meet with techie folks, and we all had sushi together. He struck me as a good, knowledgeable, fair fellow.

I wish him the best and offer my counsel (for what it's worth) in the service of Sealand.

After reading the Haven Co press release they put out towards the end, I got the distinct impression that the whole SeaLand thing was a complete fraud. Did we ever figure out if SeaLand is actually a country, or not?

Probably never. We could just build the hospital and clinic when you get sick or surgery using your funds. Oh, and hire and train the doctors. And the roads and infrastructure. And provide schooling for the children of the people who work in the factory that will weave the bed sheets in case you want something better than hay when you're lying in your bed recovering. Heck, we'll be on standby. Not a problem.

Taxes also destroy civilizations. A classic phase of a lot of dead empires is the squandering phase where an elite, which profits off of taxation by the empire, gets too greedy and kills the golden goose by raising taxes too much and using too little of those funds to reinvest in the empire.

What happens with most empires is that the components (several cycles of Chinese empires, the Western Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, etc.) is that the political/geographic sub-components become too powerful, siphoning off revenue from the central government for their own use, which atrophies and loses its authority. A new conqueror may then come in to reconsolidate central power by stripping away the authority of the peripheral components.

The Roman Empire after about 200 AD. A number of Chinese empires, for example, the Han dynasty (it's so common in their history that it becomes part of the way that the mandate of Heaven is lost). And the Mughals of India. The loss of England's American colonies. The decline of the Spanish empire and the loss of its American territories.

In modern times, the Ottoman empire in the 19th century. A number of communist attempts to take over countries (particularly, the failure to annex Chile into the sphere of influence). The current weakness of the less economically sound members of the EU looks to me to be another such decline.

The Roman Empire after about 200 AD. A number of Chinese empires, for example, the Han dynasty (it's so common in their history that it becomes part of the way that the mandate of Heaven is lost). And the Mughals of India. The loss of England's American colonies. The decline of the Spanish empire and the loss of its American territories.In modern times, the Ottoman empire in the 19th century. A number of communist attempts to take over countries (particularly, the failure to annex Chile into the sphere of influence). The current weakness of the less economically sound members of the EU looks to me to be another such decline.

Suddenly we're talking about empires, not societies. Do you seriously propose that the Communist attempt to build an "empire" failing was a bad thing? Or that empires are the way to go generally?

Nah.
Conservatives have made a cottage industry (all right- much bigger than a cottage now) trying to spin history this way, but it was the growth of vast independent estates (latifundia), virtual microstates of their own, that originally were tasked with delivering tax revenues to the government (there was no Roman IRS) collected from their tenants (coloni), which simply stopped paying taxes.

Tax rates did shoot up after that, but only because the tax base shrank - those with most of the wealth weren't p

This system socioeconomic organization - great independent (e)states with tenants who owed taxes and services to their overlord - suspiciously resembles Feudalism not by accident. The Westem Roman Empire devolved into Feudal Europe.

So what you're saying is yes, overtaxation helped kill these empires, but there was some nuance to how it did that.

No, what he is saying is that a lot of wealthy people paid little or no tax and became more or less independent of the empire, contributing little and yet exploiting the economic benefits of having a large organised trading empire and powerful military to defend their interests.

Don't see why it's so interesting. The most spectacular civilizations of ancient times were empires. They're big and well known, they generate a lot of exciting wars in their making and dissolution, and they tend to be at the center of a lot of historical changes.

I suppose it'd be better to discuss relative taxation policies of Ancient Greece or the Hanseatic League. These are collections of confederacies of city states that would probably show better the impact of relative taxation on their fortunes. Bu

A classic phase of a lot of dead empires is the squandering phase where an elite, which profits off of taxation by the empire, gets too greedy and kills the golden goose by raising taxes too much and using too little of those funds to reinvest in the empire.

So force to, in other words, tax the rich and spend the money on public works.

So force to, in other words, tax the rich and spend the money on public works.

There's this confusion between "rich" and my use of the term "elite". Sure, if you own a lot of wealth, you are some sort of elite. That could be because you provided a lot of value to the rest of the world, but it could also be because you know the right politicians. Most governments of the world naturally form parasitic classes who consume public funds.

Sure, you could tax more income that people earn from the government. But in the absence of any sort of control of that spending, it just means that mor

The point is that society can't work that way. Everyone pays in some money so that services can be available when people need them. The only real argument/adjustment to make is who pays in how much.

Investors pay in whatever's necessary, and in that way the goods and services are available as needed. That's how gorcery stores work, for example, and that's why food is available 24/7 from an array of competing providers.

When are we going to get the converse? If you don't use the service, you don't have to pay for the service?

That would defeat the whole purpose of taxation. If the people who benefit from the service could afford the service to begin with, we wouldn't need to levy a tax to fund it. Those who needed the service would just pay for directly.

When are we going to get the converse? If you don't use the service, you don't have to pay for the service?

You're aware that your sentiment is pre-stoneage? Yes, paleolithic societies (both Neanderthals and "modern" humans) took care of their elderly and injured on a community basis. I won't provide a "citation" as it's easily available via Google, and it will be a novel experience for you to actually gather some facts. Oh, and good luck with Romney.

When are we going to get the converse? If you don't use the service, you don't have to pay for the service?

That is perfectly fine if you go and live somewhere like Sealand or a desert island and are economically self sufficient. In fact, I wish a few more libertarians would have the courage of their convictions and fuck off to their Cryptonomicon wet dream micronations, and leave the rest of us alone.

Yes, if you are a multi-millionaire you can live on a fucking boat somewhere and pay for everything you need yurself. Big deal. The whole planet can't be multi-millionaires until we discover the secret of free

Just because you don't directly benefit from a service and you share in its cost, doesn't mean you don't benefit at all.

This veers into the realm of bullshit rationalizations. One can always come up with a "benefit" no matter how contrived, spurious, or nebulous it has to be.

For example, insurance, whether its private or public, would never work if you pay only when you need it.

You mean negative consequences which threaten your cash flow are somehow equivalent to insurance? No, they are different things. The need for insurance precedes the harm it is meant to insure against. So it would be payed only when you want/"need" it.

It's not "yours" to begin with. If, to put it crudely, the majority decide to kill all the rich people and redistribute their wealth, good luck enforcing your property rights. The only property that you can call your own is what you can carry on your person, the rest is a series of traditions and age old compromises. How do you get to "own" a piece of land? You're allowed to because the majority of people get to live somewhere else fairly happily, that's all. If you have a cellar full of gold bars, it's

They [taxes] are the mutual obligation of everybody to help their society as far as they are able.

Except that there's a big of taxes that isn't. Some part of taxes is this nebulous obligation to "help" society. The rest is just twigs for somebody's nest.

That sacrifice has enabled the society they live in to flourish and take care of its poor and its sick, and provide government and justice and education and police and roads and airports and hospitals and electricity and water for the good of everyone.

And it's enabled a number of people to get very rich by knowing the right people or filling out the right paperwork.

He was the prince of a principality, yet required the care that British Healthcare provided. Reminds me of some Americans with Canadian dual-citizenship who come back to Canada to get Healthcare. If you don't pay taxes you shouldn't get anything. Citizenship is an obligation as much as it is a birthright.

Revoking his citizenship could have put the British Gov't in the position that they were recognizing Sealand so they couldn't really do that...

This guy was not another Emperor Norton. Even before he declared himself the sovereign of an abandoned radar platform, he was involved in activities (unauthorized radio stations, gambling) that he conducted offshore in an attempt to put himself outside UK law. Basically, the dude was a small-time criminal with a particularly creative lawyer.

A lot of dumb people who are into silly "antigovernment" movements think the Prince of Platform #2 was a hero because his legal gimmick vaguely resembled a seastead, an

Obviously you can't cut people off just because they don't pay taxes, because that would cut off a lot of the poor from healthcare. The current rules [travelinsurancefile.com] are that you can only leave for 6 months (7 in Ontario, 8 in Newfoundland) before they cut off your health insurance. There's probably quite a few people who just haven't told the goverment that they left and still keep their health card. There's also quite a few snowbirds who move down south for the 6 months minus a day in the winter and are still able to kee

Obviously you can't cut people off just because they don't pay taxes, because that would cut off a lot of the poor from healthcare.

Sure you can. Here in the US, unless you are in the military, work for the government, or are retired on Social Security, everyone is cut off from government financed health care. If you can pay for it, great. If you can't, when your health gets bad enough, just call 911 and an ambulance will come pick you up and you'll be treated until you are stabilized. Works great!

If you can't, when your health gets bad enough, just call 911 and an ambulance will come pick you up and you'll be treated until you are stabilized.

Of course, your definition of "stabilized" will likely be much different from that of the hospital before they kick you to the door here. You can forget getting cured of whatever caused your critical condition unless getting you stabilized cures you.

Of course, your definition of "stabilized" will likely be much different from that of the hospital before they kick you to the door here. You can forget getting cured of whatever caused your critical condition unless getting you stabilized cures you.

The American health care system would run out of patient to treat if we actually cured people! How would they stay in business?! Yes, yes... I'm just trolling...

I think the reason that retired Canadians who six months minus a day in Florida or Arizona has more to do with US immigration laws as provincial regs on regarding the revocation of health insurance. Canadians can stay in the US for up to six months without a visa. I'm sure other sunnier countries have similar rules regarding non-working foreigners staying for extended periods of time.

Depends on what you mean by 'taxes'. If you're talking about income tax, then even someone with a full-time minimum wage pays a small amount, and that's a large proportion of poor people. I'd have to check the current figures to be exact, but if you're working under about 4 days a week on minimum wage then you're below the threshold for not paying income tax. The only people not paying any income tax are either unemployed, part time and on minimum wage, or on a low income with a non-working spouse.

Even then, you are still likely to be paying council tax, although possibly at a lower rate. If you're in a shared house then this will, again, be quite a small amount. It's typically around £50-100/month for a typical house, depending on the exact size and location, with a 25% discount for a single occupant.

Beyond that, if you're buying anything beyond absolute essentials then you're most likely paying VAT on most of what you buy. You'd have to try pretty hard to find many poor people who don't buy at least something that isn't VAT exempt (homeless people probably don't, but anyone who isn't completely destitute almost certainly does). Of course, they may not be paying much tax, but they are paying some, and the point of taxpayer-funded services is you're ability to use them isn't proportional to the amount that you pay.

most here don't seem to grasp that "free" healthcare still has to be paid for by somebody.

No, that's just a Libertarian talking point. Most realise that healthcare does have to be paid, but that it's significantly cheaper overall if you don't have two layers of profit in the middle and that society benefits overall if people are cared for when they become ill. I am well aware that the NHS adds to the bottom line on my tax bill. I'm also aware that buying the same level of healthcare in the USA now (as a healthy young person) would cost me about twice as much if I lived in the USA and that wou

I'm also aware that buying the same level of healthcare in the USA now (as a healthy young person) would cost me about twice as much if I lived in the USA

Actually, since healthy young people are the lowest-risk category, insurance for them is very cheap... No doubt cheaper than the taxes paid to the NHS. It's the rest of the populace which would get a poor deal out of it.

Additionally, there was a study showing that Kaiser Permente's model was more efficient and cheaper in the end than the UK's NHS model.

Yes and money from the government, although, in return, the government keeps the income from Crown lands, which would probably be more. Although that gets one into discussions of hereditary wealth, and right of conquest which could go on for ever...

Which authority amounts to pretty much zero unless those nations decide otherwise. The British Monarchy is something of an enormous LARP.

I beleive the correct term is "figurehead"

I don't expect non British/commonwealth to understand but the Queen is a leader we can point at and not be ashamed of (mainly due to the fact that she does nothing of note besides charity events and Christmas speeches).

Modern understanding of good hygiene, sanitation, vermin control, physical activity, accident prevention, and adequate clothing, shelter, and HVAC systems contribute most to longevity. Those in the medical profession would have you think that you are living twice as long as you would have were it not for all of their medications, treatments, surgeries and other procedures. Of all the medical "miracles", only antibiotics and insulin have had enough effect to substantially increase life expectancy for the g

Modern understanding of good hygiene, sanitation, vermin control, physical activity, accident prevention, and adequate clothing, shelter, and HVAC systems contribute most to longevity. Those in the medical profession would have you think that you are living twice as long as you would have were it not for all of their medications, treatments, surgeries and other procedures. Of all the medical "miracles", only antibiotics and insulin have had enough effect to substantially increase life expectancy for the general population.

You left out good nutrition, also not high tech medicine, but extremely important for longevity (more important than accident prevention by far). And you left out vaccinations a tool that is doing wonders right now in extending the lives in the Third World right now, just as they did in industrialized societies (they are far more important for this purpose than HVAC).

But you entirely leave out "quality of life". How many people go through their entire lives without ever requiring intervention from modern me

I'd like to think that most of those people have no idea who or what they're voting for. They just think either "My daddy always voted republican cuz he was a real 'merican", or "My church told me that guy is a secret muslim", or some other such nonsense. Then they just repeat whatever Limbaugh says.

I'm not saying there aren't Dem's that aren't the same way, but my experience lately has been mostly ridiculous misinformation on the republican side.

Micronations are a pipe dream for libertarian morons. Your nation is only as strong as your ability to defend it. And that goes for whether it's on an oil rig or half of an existing country [wikipedia.org]. If you're going to declare independence, you're going to need an army that's as least as strong as the army of the country you're declaring independence from. Otherwise, you're just a nutball clown (like "Prince Roy" here).

Micronations are a pipe dream for libertarian morons. Your nation is only as strong as your ability to defend it. And that goes for whether it's on an oil rig orhalf of an existing country [wikipedia.org]. If you're going to declare independence, you're going to need an army that's as least as strong as the army of the country you're declaring independence from. Otherwise, you're just a nutball clown (like "Prince Roy" here).

Really/ You had better jump in your tardis back to 1776 and tell those 13 American colonies that they will fail because the only have a handful of militia men and are challenging the strongest military on the planet at the time.

A cat can not attack and kill a dog but it can injure it enough that the dog will leave it alone.

I think you are being a bit pedantic there. While you are technically correct, it does not change the essence of his argument - that you need to possess sufficient force to give your declaration some credibility.

For one thing in 1776 the UK Military was not #1 in the world. They had virtually no standing Army, and most of India was still under the Mughals. That's why they needed the Hessians. The Royal Navy was top of the line, but the Army basically didn't exist.

For another you're ignoring the fact that the colonists actually had the resources to create an Army strong enough to resist the Brits. The OP was exaggerating with implying you need more actual troops on the day you declare independence, but his main point is sound. If you can't protect your country you don't have a country, period.

For one thing in 1776 the UK Military was not #1 in the world. They had virtually no standing Army, and most of India was still under the Mughals. That's why they needed the Hessians. The Royal Navy was top of the line, but the Army basically didn't exist.

This,

In 1776 the colonial militia was the army in the American colonies. Back in the 18th century they would raise armies as needed rather than keep professional soldiers on payroll. The force that made England powerful was the Navy which was did keep professional sailors on pay during times of peace but the Navy's main purpose wasn't warfare, it was trade. In the Napoleonic war a soldier was a farmer or worker who was given a guinea (gold coin worth 1 pound and 5 pence in 1800) to sign up and received e

Really/ You had better jump in your tardis back to 1776 and tell those 13 American colonies that they will fail because the only have a handful of militia men and are challenging the strongest military on the planet at the time.

And if that biggest military hadn't been distracted and occupied elsewhere, and if handful hadn't gained the assistance of the second biggest military... things would have gone considerably different. They were brave as hell, but even more so - they were lucky as hell.

By 1776 America had become a long distance pain in the arse for Britain. At that stage there was no real concept of a British Empire, so there was no real economic purpose in trying to hang onto an unwilling trading partner. Plus, we didn't have nukes then.

There's actually nothing wrong with a micronation in theory, especially in modern society. Obviously, a great nation doesn't just pop up overnight, and unlike the settlers of ages past, we no longer really have large land masses far out of reach of other nations to claim, settle, and build up over time without interference. (Well, unless you're looking into colonizing other planets or moons?)

The reason a micronation *should* be feasible is the hope that the rest of the existing nations of the world are civ

The reason a micronation *should* be feasible is the hope that the rest of the existing nations of the world are civilized enough not to come in and slaughter their populations, just because they don't like a little competition.

Actually, the main threat to a micronation would likely be privateers.

The reason a micronation *should* be feasible is the hope that the rest of the existing nations of the world are civilized enough not to come in and slaughter their populations, just because they don't like a little competition.

Actually, the main threat to a micronation would likely be privateers.

That really depends on how seriously the micronation is taken.

There was one in the South Pacific that was broken up by Tonga. They were concerned the new nation would stop them from fishing there. I think it was called Minerva? And I vaguely recall a gay one being broken up by the Aussies. Another one in the Mediterranean was destroyed by the Italians.

Sealand isn't taken seriously by the UK, so the Brits won't simply send a cop to the platform to arrest everyone; which meant the only real threat were raider

Sealand would have been done for if they'd simply blockaded him. Prince Roy himself lived on the mainland, and could have been arrested anytime if the PM had chosen to interpret his claim to Sealand as an attack on Britain's sovereignty over HM Fort Roughs.

That's the problem with micronations. The entire earth is a) formally claimed by somebody, b) would be formally claimed if not for bureaucratic screw-ups (HM Fort Roughs, aka: Sealand, is a perf

To be fair, they are all part of Europe. Europe as a whole has enough muscle to defend itself. The countries in Europe just decided to work together, rather than wait for the next one to try to take over the world. We've learned our lessons by now.

I think the smaller countries of Africa are a much better example - because you do have a good point.

I remember having a talk with an International Relations professor at university, he said (I'm paraphrasing) that in the international arena all nations have to fend for themselves eventually and that is defined as Realpolitik. The example was that if all nations were boats on the ocean, the size of each boat representing the power and influence of each nation, and if some big boat makes waves then all smaller boats will have to align themselves to the incoming ripples. The smaller you are the hardest the h